A PI integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.
The investigator, linked to the most serious accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.
Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the legal action.
Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.
The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.
In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.
The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”
He added that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting publications.
He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.
His testimony indicated he was informed allegations against newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
The investigator, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.
The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.
The judge gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wished to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.
A additional court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.
Lena Hoffmann is a seasoned journalist with a passion for uncovering stories that matter, specializing in German current affairs and digital media trends.
